FCC is led by a former lobbyist; the lobbyists are led by former FCC leaders.

Washington, DC, has long had a revolving door through which government officials exit to become lobbyists, and lobbyists enter to become government officials.

Regulators being led by former executives from the industries they're supposed to regulate and industry groups being led by their former regulators sounds like it should be the stuff of fiction. But the Federal Communications Commission has once again proven that this phenomenon is quite real.

Further Reading

AT&T calls new chairman an "inspired pick," seeks end to "outdated" regulations.

The CTIA Wireless Association today announced that Meredith Attwell Baker—a former FCC Commissioner and former Comcast employee—will become its president and CEO on June 2, replacing Steve Largent, a former member of Congress (and former NFL player).

Largent himself became the cellular lobby's leader when he replaced Tom Wheeler—who is now the chairman of the FCC. Wheeler is also the former president and CEO of the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association), which… wait for it… is now led by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

To sum up, the top cable and wireless lobby groups in the US are led by a former FCC chairman and former FCC commissioner, while the FCC itself is led by a man who formerly led both the cable and wireless lobby groups.

There's more. Baker, the new CTIA CEO, was also an employee of the CTIA before her stint as an FCC commissioner. She was a director of congressional affairs at CTIA from 1998 to 2000, and she started working for the government in 2004 when she joined the Department of Commerce. She was appointed to the FCC in 2009, voted in favor of Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal in January 2011, and then left the government to become senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast-NBCUniversal in May 2011.

"Meredith is a perfect fit to lead CTIA going forward given her vast experience with the telecommunications industry," Dan Mead, chairman of CTIA and CEO of Verizon Wireless, said in today's announcement. "We're excited to welcome her back to the association."

Baker faces restrictions on lobbying FCC commissioners during the remainder of the Obama administration but can still lobby members of Congress.

Wheeler, who became chairman last year, was president and CEO of the CTIA from 1992 to 2004 and president and CEO of the NCTA from 1979 to 1984. Along the way, he also worked as a venture capitalist; started companies that offer cable, wireless, and video communications services; and wrote a book on President Lincoln's use of the telegraph during the Civil War.

The revolving door is open to both Democrats and Republicans. While Baker and Powell are Republicans, Wheeler is a Democrat.

A lone wolf

Although it seems like the FCC's revolving door leads only to industry lobbyist groups, there are other paths. Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner from the Democratic Party between 2001 to 2011, was the only member to vote against the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, and he is now a self-described public interest advocate who leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause.

While there can be good people who go through the revolving door, it's bound to lead to worse policy decisions, Copps told Ars today.

"When people come and go in the industry, they have all these contacts and better access than other people have and more opportunity for their voices to be heard and their influence to be deployed," he said. "I think that only enhances the power of the special interest at the expense of the public interest."

The revolving door "isn't peculiar to the Federal Communications Commission. It's kind of everywhere you look. Probably it's one reason why a lot of people have diminished trust or diminished faith in government."

Media consolidation is "wreaking havoc on our news and information infrastructure, on our communications ecosystem, and I don't think there is a greater issue facing the country right now," Copps said. "I don't think there's any possibility of reform and change until you have a media that actually tells what's going on in the country, a decentralized local media, a media that has real investigative reporting resources, and I think you don't have democracy without media democracy."

Among current FCC commissioners, Republican Ajit Pai previously served as associate general counsel for Verizon and held numerous government positions before becoming a commissioner in 2012. Commissioner Michael O'Reilly, in office since 2013, was previously a policy advisor in the Office of the Senate Republican Whip.

Democrat Mignon Clyburn, in office since 2009, was previously a newspaper publisher and then chairwoman of South Carolina's Public Service Commission. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, appointed in 2012, previously practiced communications law and held positions with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Rosenworcel was also a legal advisor to Copps when he was on the commission.

At some point, you feel helpless to change it. It feels like a machine that you can't control, that you will never be able to control, I'm sick of it. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but damn it feels like for every step forward we take three steps back sometimes.

I have to wonder how much of this is typical high level nepotism, where the leader chooses his successor on the way out, shockingly from his small pool of friends, and that person does the same on their way out and so on. In a relatively specialized field like this, the pool is pretty small so you have the same faces rotating around the different positions on a regular basis.

Obama could fix this, but he probably doesn't know anybody who would be qualified for the position, and is just going on the recommendation of the previous chair.

That's not at all what the article says. And anyway, the courts have already killed NN. There's nothing the FCC needs to do to kill them any further. But the FCC does need to take steps if they want to reimpose NN rules.

"The Federal Communication Commission's proposal for new net neutrality rules will allow internet service providers to charge companies for preferential treatment, effectively undermining the concept of net neutrality..."

The fact this is legal is disgusting....but of course it's not like we even have the power to vote any of these guys out and good luck getting congress to do anything about it for fear of cutting off their slush fund donations.

That's not at all what the article says. And anyway, the courts have already killed NN. There's nothing the FCC needs to do to kill them any further. But the FCC does need to take steps if they want to reimpose NN rules.

"The Federal Communication Commission's proposal for new net neutrality rules will allow internet service providers to charge companies for preferential treatment, effectively undermining the concept of net neutrality..."

Literally the first sentence.

Thanx to the court decision, ISPs already have that right, even if the proposed FCC NN rules never see the light of day. So no, the FCC isn't "killing" NN, it's already dead.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Well, I think that honestly the cost of having officials less experienced in the industry doesn't even begin to outweigh the benefits of getting rid of the systemic conflicts of interest in our legislative and consumer oversight bodies. As far as how to keep those officials knowledgeable on the technological issues they'll be dealing with...honestly, I think if they're running for a position that oversees an industry, they should already be up-to-date on the technology and practices of that industry. Granted, I probably should have put huge [idealism] tags around this whole comment, but at least it's something to work towards instead of just saying, "Eh, it is what it is".

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

There's more. Baker, the new CTIA CEO, was also an employee of the CTIA before her stint as an FCC commissioner. She was a director of congressional affairs at CTIA from 1998 to 2000, and she started working for the government in 2004 when she joined the Department of Commerce. She was appointed to the FCC in 2009, voted in favor of Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal in January 2011, and then left the government to become senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast-NBCUniversal in May 2011.

Quote:

Democrat Mignon Clyburn, in office since 2009, was previously a newspaper publisher and then chairwoman of South Carolina's Public Service Commission. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, appointed in 2012, previously practiced communications law and held positions with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Rosenworcel was also a legal advisor to Copps when he was on the commission.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

Not really news, this happens with all the government agencies. People aspire for those government positions not because of what the role is but for the lucrative job they can convert it into down the road. I would support not an outright ban on the revolving door, but a significant cooling period of say 5 years between moving from industry to regulator and viceversa. While there are efficencies in knowing the players there is too much temptation to play along for your old buddies, not to mention it just looks wrong.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

While I agree with you on some points. I think it's possible to find people outside of the industry that understand it and you don't have to find people outside the industry, maybe just not directly running what you are regulating or lobbying for them. I think even ethics rules wouldn't completely work, because you can always twist something into being ethical or at least sound close enough.

I think it boils down to a basic problem that people in power have shown they will abuse that power and when you see someone go back and forth, it's hard to believe that they will regulate and not side with their buddies, who'll probably be paying their next salary. Plus it also doesn't help anytime people call out what they think is corrupt behavior, rightly or wrongly, the usual response is something along the lines of, "You just don't understand.", which comes off as patronizing.

So, I don't have an answer either, but I do know the status quo doesn't seem to be all that great.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I'm hardly suggesting this will happen, but the question as stated was more hypothetical - in a more ideal world, this is my suggestion, though I failed to consider academia as well, a lot of good talent there too.

Of course pragmatically, our government is well beyond hope of salvaging.

Anybody that hasn't read the story of Edwin Armstrong and his legal battles with RCA over the technology of FM radio really should do so (Wikipedia has a reasonable overview of his story). The FCC at that time was lobbied by RCA to change the FM broadcasting band, essentially bankrupting Armstrong and his new FM technology. The introduction of FM broadcast for radio and television was delayed for decades as a result, and RCA continued to dominate radio with their older but entrenched AM technology.

Why does this have anything to do with the FCC? The chairman at that time was installed by FDR as a political favor in exchange for campaign contributions, and he accepted RCA lobbying efforts to kill the newer FM technology and therefore protecting RCA.

Armstrong was the genius behind superheterodyne receiver as well as FM, among many other things. After being badly bankrupted and beaten in protracted patent litigation with RCA, he finally fell to his death after jumping from the window of his 13th floor apartment.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

In some professions, like accounting, the standards bodies can specify that a member not only must avoid a conflict of interest, but must also avoid the <i>appearance</i> of a conflict of interest. That would be the solution here.I'm sure our congress will want to create a standards body for lobbyists that will institute standards like this in the future.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

Worked for Singapore.

Have you seen how much money government employees can make now? Especially at the higher levels. They can make a ton of money and with better benefits than people in industry.

That's not at all what the article says. And anyway, the courts have already killed NN. There's nothing the FCC needs to do to kill them any further. But the FCC does need to take steps if they want to reimpose NN rules.

"The Federal Communication Commission's proposal for new net neutrality rules will allow internet service providers to charge companies for preferential treatment, effectively undermining the concept of net neutrality..."

Literally the first sentence.

Thanx to the court decision, ISPs already have that right, even if the proposed FCC NN rules never see the light of day. So no, the FCC isn't "killing" NN, it's already dead.

But I grant you that is what the article says, so I stand corrected.

As noted in other articles, the FCC could have changed the designation of ISPs to that of "common carriers" and could technically have the power to enforce net neutrality rules, so net neutrality isn't dead.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

Well, let's also consider the other implications of this. Who else is a government employee? Public school teachers. Park rangers. Archivists. Military personnel. You know, people who might just deserve to make a lot more money. That's one of the main arguments for a strong public sector; since it's not profit-driven, it can set salaries based on things other than profitability.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

Worked for Singapore.

Have you seen how much money government employees can make now? Especially at the higher levels. They can make a ton of money and with better benefits than people in industry.

Which maybe sounds nice sure, but considering that these people can have responsibilities at least on par with a CEO well... why the hell should anyone go into government.

(Oh and benefits are a LIE since they only mean wage slavery. Better to pay for your healthcare or have socialized medicine that everyone pays for, from your job is a hideous system and America is proof. Other benefits its a similar case)

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

Well, let's also consider the other implications of this. Who else is a government employee? Public school teachers. Park rangers. Archivists. Military personnel. You know, people who might just deserve to make a lot more money. That's one of the main arguments for a strong public sector; since it's not profit-driven, it can set salaries based on things other than profitability.

Yeah the sort of trickledown effect of the hierarchical pyramid is not something I'm deaf to either.

This starts to get into why it would be so difficult to do paying employees is already a major expense, hence major major budget to increases.

However I will point out you "deserve" claim there is part of why it doesn't happen, because you say your paying someone 5 million dollars and suddenly a chorus of folks say they "don't need that much" yadda yadda and so on.

Course I might ask does the Undersecretary Muckey-Muck of the EPA deserve more then oh... Johnny Depp for acting? Or any actor, sports star, etc? Who deserves what is a difficult question yes?

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

Worked for Singapore.

Have you seen how much money government employees can make now? Especially at the higher levels. They can make a ton of money and with better benefits than people in industry.

Hahaha no. I wish this particular red herring would just shrivel up and die.

As a 15 Step 3 I am well-compensated. As someone using their JD in the course of their employment, I am so grossly under-compensated that there are first year associates at firms in DC who make more than I do.

By and large people in government positions can make more money working in the public sector, particularly if they walk out the contractor revolving door. A lot of government employees you might consider "over-compensated" aren't making a whole lot of money, even when you calculate in their benefits. This doesn't even consider contracting, which is the greatest rip-off perpetrated of the American people ever. Contractors cost more per body (and often make more than their government counterparts) to perform the same or less work.